Offsides is offsides.
- Blackstrom2

The review is not the problem, the rule needs to be modified about the leg in the air. If not, then the rule stands and that is that

You dont believe in NHL conspiracies, even after the John Scott fiasco?
- Cephalopods

No I don't, and I don't think Johnn Scott was a conspiracy. It was the Coyotes being scum bugs and the NHL letting them be scum bags. They got caught and did damage control poorly making it 10 times worse.

Agree with Tanner, it's not a good rule.

Also hate the automatic "slash" penalty called if a stick breaks. The stick breaks if you look at it the wrong way.

The penalty for delay of game when the puck goes over the boards by a Dman should be changed also. One thing if the D man shoots it over the boards. Another if the puck hits a D man's stick and deflects over the boards, being a penalty.

Oh well, the officiating is what it is, just bad right now. Both teams have to deal with bad calls usually/eventually.
- Marc D

Exactly.

The NHL has instituted it's own brand of mandatory minimum sentences. Instead of having an automatic response to the puck going over the glass, or a broken stick, the ref should be able to make a judgement, as he does in 90% of all other interactions.

No I don't, and I don't think Johnn Scott was a conspiracy. It was the Coyotes being scum bugs and the NHL letting them be scum bags. They got caught and did damage control poorly making it 10 times worse.
- DDM-Coga

Yes. In the case of conspiracy theories, we often forget that people are greedy idiots who do dumb things and that coincidences and longshots happen.

Whatever advantage the League would get out of favoring the blackhawks would not be worth the risk vs reward of being caught in a scandal that would forever erodes their credibility.

That is why I am 100% sure that no draft lottery has been rigged or that the league doesn't want Chicago to win.

This is the angle I have seen over and over. And the one the NHL used in their explanation video. It is from inside the blueline looking out. The puck is off the ice, not up against the boards on the ice. So combining those two things, if you pan the angle to look straight down the blueline, it is not certain where the puck is in relation to the line.

They installed cameras above the boards (circled in pic) and on top of the glass at the blue lines to look straight down the blueline for these exact calls. I haven't seen anything yet showing those angles. I would be able to accept the goal reversal if I could see it offsides from that view.

But this view isn't definitive. Which is necessary to overturn the call. I don't think it is too much to ask for a legit angle of the play.

In a playoff game, in the third period, on a go ahead goal, that has to be very clear to overturn.
- carcus

He's already deemed in the offensive zone because his trailing skate is off the ice and the puck hasn't entered the zone or crossed the entirety of the blue paint. It's not the front, closer to center, it's the back, closer to the goal line, that the puck has to cross before a player can enter.

Unless you have control of the puck, you can then skate in backwards if you want.

This is the angle I have seen over and over. And the one the NHL used in their explanation video. It is from inside the blueline looking out. The puck is off the ice, not up against the boards on the ice. So combining those two things, if you pan the angle to look straight down the blueline, it is not certain where the puck is in relation to the line.

They installed cameras above the boards (circled in pic) and on top of the glass at the blue lines to look straight down the blueline for these exact calls. I haven't seen anything yet showing those angles. I would be able to accept the goal reversal if I could see it offsides from that view.

But this view isn't definitive. Which is necessary to overturn the call. I don't think it is too much to ask for a legit angle of the play.

In a playoff game, in the third period, on a go ahead goal, that has to be very clear to overturn.
- carcus

Pucks not over the blue line and the player is already in this pic.

Yes. In the case of conspiracy theories, we often forget that people are greedy idiots who do dumb things and that coincidences and longshots happen.

Whatever advantage the League would get out of favoring the blackhawks would not be worth the risk vs reward of being caught in a scandal that would forever erodes their credibility.

That is why I am 100% sure that no draft lottery has been rigged or that the league doesn't want Chicago to win.
- James_Tanner

If the Coyotes win the Lottery to draft Matthews then I guess that will be a conspiracy?

But if they NHL was really about making money, why did they screw over the Sabres twice in drafts even though they have some of the top ratings in all the league?

come on man not everything is illuminati poop

Sorry pal, you're the one being biased here. If this is "clickbait" then I just give up now, what is even the point of discussing things or trying to have a conversation if anyone who disagrees with you is so biased they can't be trusted and is just trying get attention?

I have nothing against the Hawks and I don't get paid enough to care about how many hits my articles get. Your comment just makes me sad, since it's pretty much word for word what people say to discredit anyone they don't agree with.
- James_Tanner

I don't like the rule as written either but it is in the book and is one of the few calls than can consistently be made correctly - either by the on ice official or thru technology after review.

Most of the rest of the rules get applied arbitrarily from game to game by different refs. Blatant charging infractions by the book are no longer called, most of the time. Ticky tack hooking penalties get called regularly and for even lifting an opponent's stick which used to be a good defensive play. Ever see a spearing or butt ending penalty called anymore - no but it happens on the ice frequently.

The NHL is not known for uniform application of its rules. Just so happens that they want to get offside correct and are willing to split hairs to do it .

This entire article is ridiculous... He was offside, the goal should not have counted. The Blues should have found a way to forget about it and score another goal. Don't blame the coach's challenge for the Blues inability to step up when it counts. Tampa was in the same situation on Wednesday when a coach's challenge overturned a Hedman goal which would have given the Bolts the lead in the third. It was overturned (the play was offside so there's no sense complaining about it), Tampa, as a team, turned it on after that play and put the puck in the net to take the lead off a legitimate play.

I was hoping the Blues goal would count, as I want them to beat the Blackhawks.. but he was offside, he lifted his skate in stride causing him to be offside according to the rules. Had left his skate on the ice and extended his leg as he should have in order to stay onside, he would not have had as much speed coming over the blue line. He gained a clear advantage by not adhering to the rule. If the play was the other way and the Blackhawks scored the exact same goal, Blues fans would be quite angry if it was not overturned.

Sorry pal, you're the one being biased here. If this is "clickbait" then I just give up now, what is even the point of discussing things or trying to have a conversation if anyone who disagrees with you is so biased they can't be trusted and is just trying get attention?

I have nothing against the Hawks and I don't get paid enough to care about how many hits my articles get. Your comment just makes me sad, since it's pretty much word for word what people say to discredit anyone they don't agree with.
- James_Tanner

Glad you took the time to try and discredit my point without addressing my hockey based evaluation of WHY that play gets called offsides. But im sure you will come up with something that is an excuse against chicago in this scenario

I don't like the rule as written either but it is in the book and is one of the few calls than can consistently be made correctly - either by the on ice official or thru technology after review.

Most of the rest of the rules get applied arbitrarily from game to game by different refs. Blatant charging infractions by the book are no longer called, most of the time. Ticky tack hooking penalties get called regularly and for even lifting an opponent's stick which used to be a good defensive play. Ever see a spearing or butt ending penalty called anymore - no but it happens on the ice frequently.

The NHL is not known for uniform application of its rules. Just so happens that they want to get offside correct and are willing to split hairs to do it .
- RickJ

I'd be more pissed about Shaws goal...he's clearly making contact with the goalie and pushes him into the net....I don't know how they allow this goal. Very sad ruling.

Like he said, he was a millimeter offsides, if his skate is touching the ice, he's onside. The challenge for offsides needs to go. Make it reviewable in circumstances where an obvious offside has occurred, and leave the human element in the game.

You make it sound like it was 2 feet offside and the Blues got a clear advantage for it. The Blues outplayed the Hawks in game 2, and should have won. Icing should have been waived off in the 2nd and the hawks shouldn't have had an offensive zone faceoff with 4 seconds left. Fabbri shouldn't have been given an embellishment call for the crosscheck from Ladd (what else is fabbri supposed to do after getting cross checked from behind when not expecting it?)
- jpl0219

No tanner makes it sound like it was an milimeters offsides. The freeze frame clearly shows the puck a cool 6 inches behind the edge of the blue line with the skate in the air

This entire article is ridiculous... He was offside, the goal should not have counted. The Blues should have found a way to forget about it and score another goal. Don't blame the coach's challenge for the Blues inability to step up when it counts. Tampa was in the same situation on Wednesday when a coach's challenge overturned a Hedman goal which would have given the Bolts the lead in the third. It was overturned (the play was offside so there's no sense complaining about it), Tampa, as a team, turned it on after that play and put the puck in the net to take the lead off a legitimate play.

I was hoping the Blues goal would count, as I want them to beat the Blackhawks.. but he was offside, he lifted his skate in stride causing him to be offside according to the rules. Had left his skate on the ice and extended his leg as he should have in order to stay onside, he would not have had as much speed coming over the blue line. He gained a clear advantage by not adhering to the rule. If the play was the other way and the Blackhawks scored the exact same goal, Blues fans would be quite angry if it was not overturned.
- Savlep

Feel like your missing the point here. Its probably not so much the call was overturned as it is the 5 minutes of energy sapping ridiculousness that takes what was a fantastic exciting playoff match up all the way down to a preseason atmosphere.

No tanner makes it sound like it was an milimeters offsides. The freeze frame clearly shows the puck a cool 6 inches behind the edge of the blue line with the skate in the air
- FourFeathers773

He's clearly 6 or 8 inches off-side, whatever the width of the blue paint, minus the puck width. The fact that his skate is an inch or ten inches off the ice is irrelevant, it's off the ice.

Sorry pal, you're the one being biased here. If this is "clickbait" then I just give up now, what is even the point of discussing things or trying to have a conversation if anyone who disagrees with you is so biased they can't be trusted and is just trying get attention?

I have nothing against the Hawks and I don't get paid enough to care about how many hits my articles get. Your comment just makes me sad, since it's pretty much word for word what people say to discredit anyone they don't agree with.
- James_Tanner

Great. See ya later and good luck in the future. Cuz this is nothing but click bait. And terribly wrong too boot.

Bye.

Dont worry Tanner. It was the Canucks and their mothers fault.

I take full blame. On behalf of Vancouver, I apologize.

I don't like the rule as written either but it is in the book and is one of the few calls than can consistently be made correctly - either by the on ice official or thru technology after review.

Most of the rest of the rules get applied arbitrarily from game to game by different refs. Blatant charging infractions by the book are no longer called, most of the time. Ticky tack hooking penalties get called regularly and for even lifting an opponent's stick which used to be a good defensive play. Ever see a spearing or butt ending penalty called anymore - no but it happens on the ice frequently.

The NHL is not known for uniform application of its rules. Just so happens that they want to get offside correct and are willing to split hairs to do it .
- RickJ

Agreed.

I don't know how I feel about this - As an engineer I like exacting detail - a clear idea of right and wrong -
however as a hockey fan and with the arbitrary interpretations of rules by officials all the time I guess the league is looking for ways to be black and white about some calls -
I agree the delay is really getting crazy for all these reviews across the playoffs -
I think what makes me crazy is the lame league explanations of these calls or non calls on the case of Shaw's goal - just no rhyme or reason for some of them -

No tanner makes it sound like it was an milimeters offsides. The freeze frame clearly shows the puck a cool 6 inches behind the edge of the blue line with the skate in the air
- FourFeathers773

Lol. You're French aren't you? French people always calling it offsides. It's offside. Singular.

Next you're going to be asking "who's in nets?"

I'd be more pissed about Shaws goal...he's clearly making contact with the goalie and pushes him into the net....I don't know how they allow this goal. Very sad ruling.
- Garnie

Shaw was in the blue paint and Shattenkirk pushed him from behind with a crosscheck into Elliott. And then Brouwer violently crosschecked Seabrook to the ice.

So lets be hypothetical for a minute - say the goal was disallowed. Do you think the refs would have called 2 crosschecking penalties on the Blues on that play? Seriously doubt it, but they would have been warranted.

And that's why the application of the NHL rule book is a joke. I don't know what goaltender interference is and neither do you or the coaches or the players. It falls under 'it depends'.

I agree with the concept that if the infraction is so minuscule it can't be detected by sight then it should not matter. Regarding the Coaches Challenge, it shouldn't be one per game. Maybe a coach gets say 10 over the whole regular season, and maybe 3 per playoff season- that would add some strategic nuance- when to use it, when to save it for another battle, etc- at least in the playoffs it does have a real cost to lose your timeout if it goes multiple overtimes

While I understand the argument of call going against the spirit of the rule, and that this is a rule that slows down the game, I would ask, at what point is it a "legitimate offside".

The Duchene call is an easy one, but what about 8 inches 10, , 1 foot? Each team will have different interpretations.

As long as said rule is in place you can only call it as stringently as possible.

I'd be more pissed about Shaws goal...he's clearly making contact with the goalie and pushes him into the net....I don't know how they allow this goal. Very sad ruling.
- Garnie

Wrong again Garnie. I guess you should be used to being wrong though.

Calls are calls and they go both ways.....it's how the Players and in particular how leadership reacts.

Hitch and Backes needed to call a time out and settled the team down for the 7 minute stretch run and Teresanko took a bad penalty at a bad time. I remember when Toews took a series of Bad penalties against Detroit in 2013 and Seabrook climbed into the box and calmed him down and the rest is history.
Hitch and Backes did nothing but complain and wine and that's the difference between the Hawks leadership and the Blues. It's also why if they lose this series Hitch will be gone.

Hitchcock's post game was pathetic.

The play was off side and Shaw made a Hockey play and scored. Big Deal...every analyst on TSN and Sports net agree and these are long time Hockey guys from every position.

Calls are calls and they go both ways.....it's how the Players and in particular how leadership reacts.

Hitch and Backes needed to call a time out and settle the team down for the 7 minute stretch run and Teresanko took a bad penalty at a bad time.

I remember when Toews took a series of Bad penalties against Detroit in 2013 and Seabrook climbed into the box and calmed him down and the rest is history.
Hitch and Backes did nothing but complain and whine and that's the difference between the Hawks leadership and the Blues. It's also why if they lose this series Hitch will be gone.

Hitchcock's post game was pathetic.

The play was off side and Shaw made a Hockey play and scored. Big Deal...every analyst on TSN and Sports net agree and these are long time Hockey guys.